Is a Grand Unified Theory of physics possible?

[Nick Soapdish]

I am very skeptical that there can be one.

Whether you believe in naturalistic evolution or creation, humans are made to adapt with our environment. We are very proficient at anticipating and predicting how nature behaves around us; this is key to our survival. Our spacial awareness and our capacity for reason has given us the adaptability to create the advanced science and technology we have today.

However, the microscopic world is not our environment. With quantum physics we seem to have hit a boundary of what we can decifer about nature. With uncertainty, non-locality and particle-wave duality, our concepts of space and logic are challenged. Is this because we are outside the comfort of the environment we are adapted to? What reason to we have to believe that we can peek through the curtain of quantum physics and have the logic, intuition and awareness to see how nature truly operates?

 

[Buttercup]

We need MrSpinkles for this thread. He'll have some fascinating answers for you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't think a grand unified theory of Physics is likely to be possible.
We might get to a unified field theory.
Who knows what will be possible in the distant future.

 

[PureX]

I don't think a grand unified theory of Physics is likely to be possible.
We might get to a unified field theory.
Who knows what will be possible in the distant future.

I agree. I expect there will always be another mystery, as each solution reveals another set of questions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am reminded of ...

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

- Charles Darwin; Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)​

 

[Engyo]

I think that a truly unified theory would encompass more than physics. By limiting it to physics, I believe you doom it to impossibility. Unification would necessarily imply everything, no? Our understandings of the mind, life, and everything else would have to be included, or too much is left out and the theory will not conform completely enough to reality.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

We need MrSpinkles for this thread. He'll have some fascinating answers for you.

I miss MrSpinkles... what ever happened to him?

 

[Comet]

I agree. I expect there will always be another mystery, as each solution reveals another set of questions.

They say knowledge is like a balloon: the more you fill it, the more area the outside surface touches and the more questions there are. Knowledge and technology work in an expotential fashion!

I think that a truly unified theory would encompass more than physics. By limiting it to physics, I believe you doom it to impossibility. Unification would necessarily imply everything, no? Our understandings of the mind, life, and everything else would have to be included, or too much is left out and the theory will not conform completely enough to reality.

To be truly unfied, it must encompass more than physics indeed.

Back to the OP:

However, the microscopic world is not our environment.

No, it is our enviornment and we have learned to control much of it.

With quantum physics we seem to have hit a boundary of what we can decifer about nature. With uncertainty, non-locality and particle-wave duality, our concepts of space and logic are challenged. Is this because we are outside the comfort of the environment we are adapted to? What reason to we have to believe that we can peek through the curtain of quantum physics and have the logic, intuition and awareness to see how nature truly operates?

Our concepts of space and logic are challenged by even the non-quantum! Look at the theories of the big as well as the small. With that in mind, and believing ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.... I'd say that we could someday understand it all as one.

The problem is that we are a limited species. We live in our own little part of the universe, at our own wave-length, by our own sences, and are limited by it all. Yet, we do evolve and adapt as you have said.

I said that knowledge and technology work on an exponential level. 50 years ago, what did we know about the universe? 100 years ago? How far have we come in such things compared to the past 1,000 years.... the past 5,000? It takes but one break through to have the questions you ask now come about, it takes but one break through to have the next generation ask questions that even we could not ponder.

As for a unifying theory: I think too many put too much stock in one thing and not all. Yet, that is where new breakthroughs come from and lead to more knowledge in any area. When one looks at the "greater picture" of things..... it is possible, if we survive that long

 

[Comet]

and logic is of human nature.... it can fail us, perhaps that is the problem

 

[Yerda]

I am very skeptical that there can be one.

Whether you believe in naturalistic evolution or creation, humans are made to adapt with our environment. We are very proficient at anticipating and predicting how nature behaves around us; this is key to our survival. Our spacial awareness and our capacity for reason has given us the adaptability to create the advanced science and technology we have today.

However, the microscopic world is not our environment. With quantum physics we seem to have hit a boundary of what we can decifer about nature. With uncertainty, non-locality and particle-wave duality, our concepts of space and logic are challenged. Is this because we are outside the comfort of the environment we are adapted to? What reason to we have to believe that we can peek through the curtain of quantum physics and have the logic, intuition and awareness to see how nature truly operates?

We'll have to wait and see. Superstring theory appears to be promising from my layman perspective.

 

[Valjean]

There was at one time serious debate about weather a heavier-than-air flying machine was possible.

Don't underestimate science.

 

[yossarian22]

We'll have to wait and see. Superstring theory appears to be promising from my layman perspective.

That hydra of a theory? I lost count of how many types there are. The original forms failed to predict that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The equations were just modified to predict it. Until we actually can produce experiments, we are nowhere close to creating a unified field theory.
I have little doubt that eventually there will be a unified theory. People thought that electricity and magnetism were not connected in the slightest. Look how accurate that turned out to be.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That hydra of a theory?

Get over yourself ...

 

[yossarian22]

Get over yourself ...

As of now, I have come across over 47 distinct versions of string theory, discluding those which have modified equations to predict dark matter, but are otherwise the same-counting those would double the number. The only core similarities between the versions are "Particles are made of vibrating strings of energy" and "There are more than 3 dimensions"
The number of dimensions I have seen are 5, 10,11, and 26, but it appears that you can essentially declare however many dimensions you want it to be.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Wow...A thread about the Grand Unified Theory and I wasn't informed?!

Well, I personally dont think we can achieve such a thing, at least for now..

I have my reasons categorized into two groups, scientifically reasons, and philosophical reasons..

First, the current approaches used by scientists are not really the ONEs required for the GUT..

There are many theories already that give much promises, but I think they actually dont!

Anyway, CERN is performing an experiment on May 2008 (using what they call it LHC) to dig deeper into the universe, and to know whether the current theories are valid or not....We will have to wait

Also, a GUT would require mixing other sciences into physics to make it really Grand, and really Unified....while such a thing is not occuring, I dont believe any theory they might get right now will be any Grand nor any Unified

Philosophical wise, I dont think such a theory would exist, because if so, people will get nothing more to look for, and after 100 years of finding the theory, people will become stupid!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As of now, I have come across over 47 distinct versions of string theory, ...

Sorry that the issue hasn't been solved to your satisfaction. Perhaps it's time for us to tell the world of theoretical physics that, per yossarian, it is wasting its time, and that they should content themselves to anxiously await the time when your petty ridicule gives way to something more substantive and constructive. :yes:

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Sorry that the issue hasn't been solved to your satisfaction. Perhaps it's time for us to tell the world of theoretical physics that, per yossarian, it is wasting its time, and that they should content themselves to anxiously await the time when your petty ridicule gives way to something more substantive and constructive. :yes:

I'm afraid to say yossorian is pretty much accurate in his post..

The string theory isn't able to describe everything that much accurate...and it's not even a full theory yet...It needs too much to become a satisfying theory..

Moreover, the LHC experiment at CERN can simply show it's all a ********, and doesn't make anysense!

I attended a seminar last week for Dr. Ignatios Antoniadis...He is one of the developers of the string theory....He said there is not mathematics yet that can model the superstrings in a satisfying way...

It all depends on the LHC...and so we have to wait..

The results will be either supporting the String theory and give us evidences for its validety, and that would really be cool....Or the results can show how much we dont know anything, and they can open the doors to totally new sciences and theories!...Who knows anyway!

 

[Comet]

I think the most important thing about string theroy is that is does give us something "new". If you look at the so called knowledge we have, it came about due to other theories. Heck, even P-Brane theroy would not be around were it not for 11-dimensional theory, string-theory, etc....

Yet we aren't debating string theory, but if a Grand Unified Theory is possible. I think it is. I really think the problem is people get to specialized in one area. Quantums tend to study and research quantum, Astrophysicists the astro, etc....

I think it is possible. It wil take many more insights, much research, and new discoveries to do that...... but I think it is possible, despite "new theories" that are proven wrong.... As Seyorni said:

There was at one time serious debate about weather a heavier-than-air flying machine was possible.

Don't underestimate science.

Perhaps time will tell those of us who live long enough to see it.

 

[Random]

There already is a grand unified theory of physics available: it's called Determinism.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

I think the most important thing about string theroy is that is does give us something "new". If you look at the so called knowledge we have, it came about due to other theories. Heck, even P-Brane theroy would not be around were it not for 11-dimensional theory, string-theory, etc....

Yet we aren't debating string theory, but if a Grand Unified Theory is possible. I think it is. I really think the problem is people get to specialized in one area. Quantums tend to study and research quantum, Astrophysicists the astro, etc....

I think it is possible. It wil take many more insights, much research, and new discoveries to do that...... but I think it is possible, despite "new theories" that are proven wrong.... As Seyorni said:



Perhaps time will tell those of us who live long enough to see it.

Yeah...Who knows..

But I still think we won't achieve it

You know, it's like an asymptot....We get very close, but never reach..